Module VI

Chapter I
Constitutional Provisions relating to Environment Protection in
India.
Introduction
Constitution of India has been the most amended constitution and still evolving and growing.
At the time when constitution was enacted there was no provision which was there to protect
the environment except the preamble stating that the India is a socialist country. States has
the obligation to see that it not only individual problems are addressed but also social
problems are addressed, which includes a duty of the state to provide a standard of living and
pollution free environment to the citizens of country. After few years preamble got amended
and it has been integrated as it deals with the security of citizens by providing justice and
justice also include environment justice.

As per 42nd amendment, 1976 of Constitution of India, included the provision for protection
of environment directly under fundamental duties which was article 50-A and directive
principles of State Policy which was article 48-A. The status of environment protection has
not only raised to the fundamental law of land but it has been also extended as a human rights
and is now accepted as well established fact that it is basic human rights to every citizen of
India.1

42nd amendment has also amended seventh schedule that is Concurrent List ( List- III) ,
where both the State and Central Government has power-- but in the instance of conflict the
decision of the central government will supersede. So by this amended they added matters
like forest, protection of wild animals and birds, population control and family planning. The
effect of this amendment it will be that the centre and state both can legislate on the subject as
it has been incorporated under list-III. And side by side in various cases, judiciary interpreted
various Fundamental Rights terms of environment protection like Article 14,15, 21.

Responsibility of State for Environment Protection

According to Article 47, puts an obligation on the state to focus in the increase of nutrition
and standard of living of its people. With the rapid industrialisation and urbanisation there
has been increase in the level of pollution which harms the environment as well as harms the
health of a person so it is a responsibility of a state to take an effective educate and necessary
steps to improve the health and standard of living of all and promote awareness with regards
to environmental protection.

1
Shubhash Kumar V. State of Bihar AIR 420, 1991 SCR(1) 5
Articles 48-A,2 which imposes a responsibility on the state, that it shall endeavour to protect
and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country.
Supreme court mandates that the state under article 48-A, has a constitutional obligation to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife in the country,
as it is a fundamental right of a citizen of the country to have a wholesome clean and decent
environment.3

Responsibility of Citizens for Environment Protection

Not only the state has the obligation to protect the environment, constitution has also bound
Citizen in the form of fundamental duty under 51-A(g), where every citizen of India has a
duty to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. So it has been interpreted in way that,
as a citizen get pollution free nature so it is a duty of every citizen to not only protect the
environment but also maintain the quality of the environment by taking different measures to
increase the quality of environment.

In the case of West Bengal & others V. Sujit Kumar Rana,4 court read article 48 and 5- A(g)
of the Constitution together and expressed that these provisions have to be kept in mind while
integrating any statutory provisions. Today, the state and citizens are under a fundamental
obligations to protect and improve the environment including forest Lake rivers wildlife and
to have compassion for living creatures.5

In the case of, State of Uttar Pradesh V. Yamuna Shankar Misra and others,6 Court has
interpreted the object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character
roles by deriving support from article 51-A (j), which enjoys upon every citizen the primary
duty to constantly in the viewer to strive towards excellence individually and collectively.

Fundamental Rights and the Environment

The Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution - Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 - has
been invoked time and again for environmental protection. The High Courts and Supreme
Court of India have read the right to a wholesome environment as a part of the right to life
guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Right to Life under Article 217:

In Article 21, which has been interpreted by the Supreme court with respect to environment
protection. Right to life includes the right to have a dignified life and also the bare necessities
of life like food shelter clean water and clothes it also extends to have a decent and a clean
environment in which an individual can survive and live safely without any threat or danger
2
Inserted by 42nd Amendment in 1976.
3
Sher Singh V. State of Himanchal Pradesh,
4
(2004) 4 SCC 129
5
T.N Godavarman Thirumalpad V. Union of India & Ors. , (2002)10 SCC 606
6
(1997) 4 SCC 7
7
Article 21 provides that: “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.”
to his or her life. In the case of Asiatic World Wide Fund India V. Union of India, where the
court held that a authority should designate or reserve a particular forest area for preservation
of wildlife. Where the Article 21 has also been extended towards wildlife or any species, that
they also have a Right to Life under Article 21.

In the case of L.K. Koolwal V. State of Rajasthan,8 the condition of the city was very
unhygienic, unsanitary and pathetic. The municipal corporation over their said, that they are
not able to provide proper sanitary as they don't have money to clean roads, sewage systems.
So, we can't hold responsible for this. The court held that non availability of funds does not
mean that authority can escape from the responsibility the funds were provided for people
cooperation and court held that it is a right of a citizen to live in a clean and sanitary
environment under Article 21.

In the Pavement Dwellers Case,9 where the pavement dwellers where to be evicted by the
Bombay Municipal Corporation but court held that these pavement dwellers have a right to
proper living with basic amenities and in clean environment under Article 21. So before
evicting them from a place BMC should make a proper arrangement for their shelter and
provide them with their basic needs.

Equality before law and Equal Protection of Law under Article 14:

In the Article 14, Constitution has granted equality before law and equal protection of law,
which imposes a duty upon state to be fair while performing their functions regarding
Environment protection. So where there is a use of arbitrary powers on the part of state
authorities the judiciary has been seen imposing arbitrary sanctions because use unfettered
discretionary power leads to violation of the fundamental rights of equality of people. In the
case of T. Damodar Rao V. Municipal Corporations Hyderabad,10 land was allotted for
recreational park. Later Income-tax Department wanted to build quarters for its employees.
Income-tax Department stated that as their state they have right to acquire land and do
whatever they want in this case the court opened that even is if state is owner, the right to
ownership is not absolute. It can't change the planning as it is changes ecological balance of
the environment. The Honourable court stated that the open spaces recreation playing
grounds and protection of ecology are the matter of vital importance in the interest of public
and crucial for the development so keeping open space for the interest of public is justified
cannot be sold or given on lease to any private person solely for the sake of monetary gains.11

Right to Speech and Expression under Article 19 (1) (a):

There has been instance, where people have been seen moving to the court, exercising their
Right to Speech and Expression under Article 19 (1) (a),12 in the form of writing letter to the
judicial officers and expressing about the infringement of their rights to have a safe and clean

8
AIR 1987 (1) WLN 134
9
Olga Tellis & Ors V. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51)
10
AIR 1987 AP 171
11
Bangalore Medical Trust V. B.S. Muddappa, AIR 1991 SC 1902.
12
Part III of the Constitution
environment and a right to livelihood.13 Apart from public, media has also emerged as crucial
voice for raising issues relating to the environment. And Right to Press is been enumerated
under Right to Speech and Expression under 19(1)(a).

Use of Loudspeaker cannot be considered as exercising right to Speech and Expression. In

the case of, PA Jacob V. The Superintendent of Police Kottayam,14 where court has made
clear that noise pollution made by loudspeakers can be controlled under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution.

Right to carry on any profession or business trade or commerce under Article 19(1) (g):

All the citizens of India are conferred by the right to you carry on any profession or business
trade or commerce at any place within the territory of India under Article 19(1) (g) of the
constitution. But like all rights described is also not absolute and has a reasonable restriction
under Article 19(6) of the constitution

For the purpose to maintain the ecological balance and safeguard the environment there has
been a reasonable restriction made in the name of caring on the trade, business, occupation or
carrying on any profession. In the case of M.C. Mehta V. Union of India,15also known as
Ganga pollution Case. Tanneries in Kanpur used to release untreated toxic waste into Ganga
River and these caused pollution. So court held that the industries should be closed, who did
not comply with the prior directions of the honourable court for the installation of air
pollution controlling system. These restrictions were made with the pursuance of Articles
19(6) of the Constitution.

In the Taz Trapezium case,16 the oil refinery in Mathura and also industries nearby Taj Mahal
used to release effluents like sulphuric acid. This sulphuric acid combined with moist in air
caused acid rain. Due to this TajMahal turned into yellowish colour. Supreme Court took the
unprecedented steps and orders to shut down around 300 industries.

International Obligations
India is signatory to various International agreements dealing with environmental protection.
India is also signatory to Stockholm declaration 1972 which held that world has environment.
And under a commitment to this agreement India has translated provisions of agreements into
Indian legislation and follows them in India.

As under Article 51(c), it has been clearly stated that, state shall foster respect for
international law and the publication of the treaties. And Article 253 of the constitution,
sanctions the parliament to incorporate the provision of any international Agreements which
India is signatory to, into Indian legislations. With the pursuance of such power, India has
come up with significant legislations like Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981
and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Environment Protection Act,
13
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SCR (3) 169
14
AIR 1993 Ker 1
15
1988 AIR 1115 1988 SCR (2) 530, 1988 SCC (1) 471
16
M.C. Mehta vs Union of India,1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819
1986 and it has been clearly stated in the preamble of these acts that the purpose of enacting
was to implement the decisions taken at the United Nations conference on the human
environment held at Stockholm, in the year 1972.

Module 6: Chapter 3

Rule of Absolute Liability and Environmental Protection

1. Introduction

Before studying Absolute liability and its correlation with the safe environment, it is
imperative to discuss the concept of ‘Strict liability’ and understand how did the principle of
Absolute liability came into existence from the former principle. These principles have been
discussed in tort law and it is of paramount significance because it not only aims to provide justice to
the victims but also emphasize on the part of the accused to foresee such acts which are bound to
take place irrespective of any fault. In other words, it provokes the authorities which are indulged in
the administration and manufacturing of such substances and articles which are inherently
dangerous and threatening to human lives to foresee and take such preventive and precautionary
measures so as to avoid any mishap.

The role performed by the principle of absolute responsibility in the environmental

protection is indeed imperative because without such principle it might be a colossal challenge to
maintain as well as promote the growth of environment and provide justice to those victims who
have been entangled within the whereabouts of the direction of looking for compensation. The
burden lies heavily on the authorities to grant compensation to the victims of environmental disaster
which had been triggered because of any form of fault in addition to restore the environment to its
former form. Here, the principle of absolute liability is invoked in an effort to hold the offender
accountable and it would be an important point to note that under the concept of Strict liability,
several exceptions are available which makes it easier for the culprit to escape its liability.

Few of the principles such as the polluter pays principle’ and the precautionary principle as
laid down under the concept of Sustainable Development are in consonance with the principle of
absolute liability. The principle cannot be studied in a watertight compartment as it has applicability
in different areas of law.

2. Evolution of Absolute liability

 STRICT LIABILITY  ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

2.1 Concept of Strict Liability

The rule of strict liability first evolved in the famous case of Rylands v. Fletcher17, the
principle stated by Blackburn, J. “The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings
on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at
his peril; if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural
consequence of its escape.”

Going by the principle laid in this case, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and
keeps some dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then such
person will be answerable for the damaged caused. The person from whose property such substance
escaped will be held accountable even when he hasn’t been negligent in keeping the substance in
his premises. The liability is imposed on him not because there is any negligence on his part, but the
substance kept on his premises is hazardous and dangerous.

There are some essential conditions which should be fulfilled to categorize a liability under
the head of strict liability:

 Dangerous substance - This essentially implies the litigant will be at risk

when the thing that got away from his premises was a dangerous thing. The
word 'dangerous ' here infers that it is probably going to do any kind of
mischief in the event that it escapes from the land. The gathered water in
Fletcher's supply was the dangerous thing in the previously mentioned case.
 Non-natural use of the land - For the use to be non-natural, it must be some
special use that brings with it increased danger to others. It must not be the
ordinary use of land or use as is proper for the general benefit of community
 Escape of that substance from the defendant’s property - It is also essential
that the thing causing harm must escape from the premises of the defendant,
and it should not be within the reach of the defendant once it escapes.

There are certain exceptions to the rule of strict liability which are as follows:

17
1866 L.R. 1 Ex.256. 1868 L.R. 3 HL 330
  Plaintiff’s own fault
 Act of God (vis Major)
 Act of the third party
 Consent of the plaintiff

2.2 Concept of Absolute Liability

18
With the expansion of chemical-based industries in India, increasing number of enterprises
store and use of hazardous substances. These activities are not banned because they have great
social utility, for example, the manufacture of fertilizers and pesticides. Traditionally, the principle of
strict liability was considered adequate to regulate such hazardous enterprises. The principle allows
for the growth of hazardous industries, while ensuring that such enterprises will bear the burden of
the damage they cause when a hazardous substance escape. Shortly after the Bhopal Gas leak
tragedy of 1984, the traditional principle was replaced by the rule of ‘absolute’ liability, a standard
stricter than strict liability. Absolute liability was first articulated by the Supreme Court and has since
been adopted by Parliament.

Simply speaking,Absolute liability is Strict liability minus its exceptions.The rule of Absolute
Liability was first evolved in India with the landmark case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India also known
as Oleum Gas Leak Case.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India19

Facts: The case deals with the aftermath of the oleum gas leakage from Shriram Food and
Fertilizers Ltd. Complex in Delhi. This company dealt with manufacture of hazardous chemicals. As
the accident occurred soon after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, it created huge panic. The facts of the case
are that some oleum (O3S- Fuming Sulphuric acid) gas escaped due to leakage in a particular area in
Delhi. Due to the leakage, many people were affected-death and injury causing damage. The Apex
Court then evolved the rule of absolute liability on the rule of strict liability and stated that the
defendant would be liable for the damage caused without considering the exceptions to the strict
liability rule. The Supreme Court held that, the strict liability rule despite being so stringent was
inadequate in modern times. This is because scientific advancements have made modern industries
even more dangerous and hazardous. Hence, the court laid down the absolute liability rule in this
case.

18
Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India 105-106 (OUP, New Delhi, 2020)
19
1987 SCR (1) 819
 Ratio (Rule):The court laid down the rule as “Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous
or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the
operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting in the escape of the
hazardous material, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are
affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any exception available in the rule laid
down in Rylands v. Fletcher.” A person can be made liable without any fault of his according to the
two rules and hence is known as the principle of “no-fault liability”.

Application of the rule:This concept of absolute liabilitylaid down by the Supreme Court in
OleumGas Leak Casewas first applied by the MP High Court to support its award of interim
compensation to the victims of Bhopal Gas Tragedy20.

2.3 Need of introducing Absolute liability

The handling of hazardous substances is not a child’s play and one needs to make this clear
that it involves considerable amount of danger to life as well as environment in case there is an
escape of such a dangerous thing or explosion or in other forms. The life of any individual is not
saleable and you cannot put it at stake merely for the sake of generating economy or running a
machinery. If a person is working in any factory which requires the handling and manufacturing of
any hazardous or dangerous substances which is life threatening or which tend to harm the
environment if it escapes in consequence of negligent behavior of the occupier/developer, then such
a victim shall not only be entitled to compensation but an exemplary amount of compensation so
that it has a deterrent effect and which must be able to stop the occurrence of such a
disaster/accident in the near future. The applicability of this principle stretches as well to a defective
design/architecture which might prove to be life-threatening to the user of such architecture.

The Oleum gas leak case21 was closely preceded by the infamous Bhopal Gas Leak Case 22
which resulted in a lot of panic in the capital. Bhagwati CJ., noted that a nineteenth-century rule was
not feasible to be applied in the present time with high level of industrialisation taking place and the
economy going through such a drastic change. As these hazardous industries could not be done
away with since they contribute majorly in improving the quality of life and to the economic
development, there needed to be a change in the laws that safeguard the people from suffering and
in turn eliminate the risk to the community because of harm caused by them. Such absolute
protection was not provided by the rule of strict liability as there were certain exceptions to it which
20
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India 4 SCC 548 (1991)
21
See supra note 3.
22
See supra note 4.
most of the times got the defaulting parties out from being liable for the consequences in such
cases.

In Dunne vs. North Western Gas Boards 23, Sellers L.J. contended that it was only rational to
infer that the Court of Appeals considered the rule to have no useful function in modern times as
“the defendant’s liability could simply have been placed on the defendants’ failure of duty to take
reasonable care”. Thus, the decline of the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher 24 left the individual injured by
the activities of industrial society virtually without adequate protection. Hence, it was concluded
that this principle was contrary to the present judicial philosophy of social justice. This brought on
the shaping of the principle of absolute liability which kept no consideration for any of the
exceptions provided in the previously followed rule and a clear distinction between them was laid
down. The clause stating the need for the hazardous thing to escape was also made not necessary
under this new principle, hence making it applicable for all those affected both inside and outside
the premises.

2.4Statutory recognition of‘Absolute Liability’

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

In 1991, Parliament enacted the Public Liability Insurance Act, giving statutory recognition to
absolute liability to ensure that immediate relief is provided to people who are victims of accidents
in which handling of hazardous substances is involved. The main focus of the Act is to create a public
liability insurance fund which can be used to compensate the victims.

Section 3 of the Act embodies the principle of absolute liability or ‘no fault liability’ and
makes the owner of establishments handing hazardous substances to indemnify victims of accidents
involving such hazardous substances. The Section provides that where any person has died or has
been injured or any property has been damaged as a result of an accident involving handling of
hazardous substance, the owner of the concerned establishment is mandatorily liable to pay relief as
specified in the Schedule of the Act for such death, injury or damage. To claim this relief, the
claimant is not required to establish that the death, injury or damage in respect of which the claim
has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of any person.

23
(1964) 2 QB 806
24
See supra note 1.
 The Act states that any person who is carrying out inherently dangerous or hazardous
activities should have insurances and policies in place where he will be insured against liability to
provide compensation to the victims in case any accident takes place, and some injury occurs. This
liability is based on the principle of absolute liability.

If any substance is inherently dangerous or hazardous due to its handling also, then also the
absolute liability of the defendant arises.

3. Landmark Cases

Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari&Ors.25

In this case a cyclist was entrapped and electrocuted by a live-wire. The board tried to
defend by stating that the wire on the ground was a wire diverted by a stranger to misuse the
energy. The Supreme Court applying the rule of absolute liability held that the particular
responsibility to supply electric energy is statutory conferred on the board. If the energy so
transmitted causes injury, it is the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier
of the electric energy.

The court also stated that a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky
exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury, irrespective of any
negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings.

Chellamma v Kerala State Electricity Board26

In a case where the plaintiff’s husband died as a result of getting electrocuted because of
gross negligence on the part of the Kerala State Electricity Board (K.S.E.B), the Kerala HC observed
that KSEB was involved in such a dangerous activity that it was absolutely liable for any damage
caused because of it.

Mushtaq Ahmed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir27

In this case the state was negligent in maintaining electricity wire and the victim died due to
electric shock. The court held that state being engaged in undertaking the activity of electricity
supply, is liable under the law of torts to compensate the petitioners for the death of the victim
irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on their part. Strict liability principle was held here,

25
(2002) 2 SCC 16.
26
WP(C). No. 12935 of 2008
27
AIR 2009 J&K 09.
although the principle so used was not of absolute liability, but the compensation provided by court
was in accordance with it.

4. Relation between Absolute Liability and the rule of Polluter pays Principle

The ‘polluter pays principle’ is an extension to the rule of Absolute liability because it
maximizes its potential to restore the harm done to the environment such as discharge of untreated
effluents into the river which percolates deep into the bowels of the Earth and deeply affect the
aquatic animals and plants, and contributes in an ecological imbalance, or through any other kind of
pollution. The restoration of harm could be taken up by adopting remedial measures depending
upon the gravity of the harm caused to the environment. However, where restoration could not take
place, hefty amounts may be imposed as a penalty on the accused. The restoration of the harm shall
be done both to the environment as well as living beings. A unique proposition which was added
under this principle was that the cost of degradation of the environment shall be paid so as to
restore the environment to its natural or former state. The principle exposes the polluter to two-fold
liability, namely, compensation to the victims of pollution and ecological restoration.

The ‘polluter pays’ principle as interpreted by the Court in Taj Trapezium Case, means that
the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of
pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remedying the damaged
environment is part of the process of ‘Sustainable Development’ and as such the polluter is liable to
pay the cost to the individual who suffers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology 28.

5. Precautionary Principle vis-à-vis Principle of Absolute Liability

The Precautionary principle as well as the principle which we discussed above are
enunciated under the heading – “Sustainable Development”. These principles have been enacted
mainly to attain the objectives of sustainable development. The principle of Absolute liability guard
against the principles of sustainable development and ensure that there is no breach of the same.
The penalizing element as well as the element of restoration of the environment back to its former
state plays a vital role in protecting the environment and its subjects. When there is an imposition of
hefty amount of penalty on the defaulter, that makes him absolutely liable to compensate for the
same damage as well as to restore the environment to its former state, whereas on the other hand
when the foreseeability beckons the occupier/owner to take preventive measures so as to avert
considerable harm or danger in the near future, then the owner/occupier shall be liable to take such
preventive measures so as to avoid harm resulting in the death/injury of the workers or degradation

28
M.C Mehta v. U.O.I, AIR 1997, SC 734
of the environment. The principle of Absolute liability and precautionary principle are parallelly
significant as they promote the concept of equity in protection of the environment as well as those
human beings who have been involved in the handling of hazardous substances in an enterprise.
Both are interdependent on each other for optimal protection of the environment and its subjects.
In the absence of either of them, the existing one could not work to its complete potential. The
precautionary principle has been mainly enacted to magnify the need for adopting preventive
measures so as to avert all kinds of danger which could lead to the degradation of the environment
as well as accidents. Thus, the principle of Absolute liability act as a guardian as well as the promoter
of sustainable development goals.

29
The ‘precautionary-principle’ – in the context of the municipal law means:

(i) Environmental measures – by the State Government and the statutory

authorities – must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental
degradation.
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent
environmental degradation.
(iii) The ‘Onus of proof” is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that
his action is environmentally benign.
30
The suggestion of this principle is that the developers must assume from the fact of
development activity that harm to environment may occur and that they should take necessary
action to prevent that harm. It is this “precautionary principle” which ensures that a substance or
activity posing a threat to the environment is prevented from adversely affecting it, even if there is
no conclusive scientific proof linking that particular substance or activity to the environmental
damage. The words “substance” and “activity” imply substance or activity introduced as a result of
human intervention. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration defines the Precautionary principle in a
similar manner wherein it states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible
environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

29
Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India 588 (OUP, New Delhi, 2020)
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715
30
Gurdip Singh, Environmental Law 38 (EBC, Lucknow, 2nd edn., 2016)
 31
Moreover, the concept of ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ is a technique to ensure that
the effects of development activity on the environment will be taken into consideration before it is
authorized to proceed. The main objective of EIA is to cross-check that a developmental activity does
not pose serious or irreversible harm to the environment, it is backed by the precautionary principle
which mandates that the EIA should be made obligatory for all developmental activities which pose
serious or irreversible damage to the environment. The concept of EIA must be perpetual in nature,
in other words, not functional only in the

6. Conclusion

Today the principle of absolute liability is extremely essential in India in order to make sure
that the ever-growing number of industries dealing with hazardous substances and thus carrying out
inherently dangerous activities, keep a check of the basic norms of safety of their employees
working in such conditions as well as of the people living in and around that area by holding them
fully liable for any damage caused to anyone because of such activities. It is important to observe the
change in the approach of the judiciary on how the previously held notion that public industries
carrying out such work should not be held liable under such circumstances as they work for public
benefit, has changed with time and now they are held equally liable as the private industries are. The
current structure of the principle has so far proved sufficient to regulate these practices and
therefore is not in urgent need of reform, although it needs better recognition by law.

31
Gurdip Singh, Environmental Law 40-42 (EBC, Lucknow, 2nd edn., 2016)